all minorities to become armed so they can stand their ground. Let the slaughter begin, a sure thing if everyone becomes armed.

Concealed carry and open carry are growing, and crime is falling. The pro-control side has been predicting disaster for years, and the statistics are proving them wrong. But they still proclaim that the next pro-gun change will be the real disaster. Yet the changes keep coming, and the disaster never does.

Forgive my intemperance, but it does become a little frustrating.

I was afraid my post would be mistaken as suggesting that. It wasn't my intent. I was illustrating, though, that increases in carry haven't resulted in higher crime rates or murder, as the poster I was responding to declared. If restrictions don't have a measurable benefit, they should be removed.

I can't say that, if more carry did increase crime, I'd be against it. My stance on this issue has been thoroughly shaped by my personal experiences(as I'm sure is the case with many on the other side, and I respect that) and it would take a great deal of empirical and statistical evidence to change my mind.

That evidence doesn't exist, though, and to keep predicting widespread problems in the future ignores evidence to the contrary.

anywhere

Wouldn't believe it if proven. Most in gun culture don't accept climate change, need for health care reform, evolution and a lot of other stuff that takes some thought.

Of course not, you'll just spout.

But if you have something logical to share, please do.

Your chances of getting it are greater.

...none of my mega tickets won. This could be my consolation prize.

Unfortunately, good ideas rarely sell, especially when there is no profit motive.

That's almost as bad. The fact that a racist can still make a political donation to a sheriff to get permissions to endanger the public is still a huge problem. Without those permits, this country would be much safer for minorities. The only thing those permit holders are missing are their white robes.

Not only can you not back up your statement with evidence, but you also appear to be calling permit holders closet KKK members...

I'm sure you must, you are always saying it. Provide your facts or you are just talking out your @ss.

You might not be like them, but that doesn't change fact that the majority of gun carriers are right wingers.

If left-wingers don't carry because they are philosophically opposed to guns, then they are acertaining that only right-wingers will carry.


"Because we refuse to carry, only rightwingers carry. Because only rightwingers carry, it's evil and backwards and we need to get rid of it so that nobody carries!"


Or something.


I bet we'd be shocked at how many bigots don't carry. Especially when many of them have viewpoints of gun-owners that are stereotypical and broad-brush.

You seem to be making your own broad brushed statements starting with IF ......left wingers don't carry.....then only right wingers will.....and then two sentences down you challenge the notion all right wingers carry. Sounds like you want it both ways.

Why does that matter if only the right carries?
Why should I care?

Overjoyed, in fact.

Pun intended.

before inserting those facts you're talking about. A simple oversight I'm sure.

"You guys just won't accept how many bigots carry."

So how many is it?

You either know, or you don't.

Which is it?

were they claims of justifiable, or were they ruled justifiable?
If they were claims of justifiable, how many were ruled as justifiable?

If that was the number of ruled as justifiable, how many used self defense as a defense under the old law?
If the number claimed are about the same in both time periods (but three times ruled justifiable today), that means one of two things:
Guilty people could be getting away with murder under the new law (which is what they are implying)
A lot of innocent people went to prison under the old law (with the information given, is equally possible)

All it shows is that deaths went up but does it in any way prove they were by any one group or does it show how many injuries or deaths were prevented because of defensive gun usage.

Try again.

You insinuate it's racists doing the killing. Nothing could be further from the truth.

....explains why so many predominately black cities are so strong at being gun control advocate jurisdictions.

My post was in response to someone saying do some research?

Ok....so what facts are you looking for?

What countries have the most per capita guns in proportion to violent crimes? Didn't think so.

Cities like New York and DC are sick and tired of Virginia arming the bad guys with guns and cities like Chicago might as well be a suburb of Dallas.

Citizens in these cities want change and gun advocates simply want more guns.

...that somehow gun control is the answer, and it's not. Not by a long shot. Gun control DISTRACTS from the real problems behind violent crime, and in fact hampers the resolving of the REAL underlying issues (poverty, education, gentrification, etc.)

We need to drop the emotional bullshit that folks who align themselves with the Brady Campaign roll out and start sticking to the facts, and we need to do it now, because the facts do NOT support their claims, end of story.

That's Not Going So Well Is It? Your education of us folks who have been 'deceived'.

The fact is guns continue to get in the hands of people who commit crimes and when organizations like the NRA object to even common sense laws like not selling arms to folks on the US terrorist watch list, then we have more than a distraction from folks like me to worry about?

Now when the terror list is used to deny someone some civil right, you can tell them it's their fault they're on the list.

The Patiot Act is flawed and wrong. The notion, however, that someone suspected of terrorism enough to warrant being on that list has a constitutional right to own a gun does nothing more than support terrorism. The NRA is in the arms business.

Why are you glad I support the Patriot Act if you don't.

Is that your view?

......should have a higher threshold to getting a gun than those not suspected of terrorism.

People don't know why they're put on it, when or for what reason. There is no appeals process. You cannot get your name off the list once it goes on. There is no public dissemination of the list.

And if you believe, for some reason, actual terrorists are on the terror list, I have ocean front property I want to sell you in Phoenix. Actual terrorists are left off the list or else they'd know the gov't was on to them.

The terror list is an absolute sham, but it's a good thing if someones RKBA is denied.

.......advocate making it better.

If there was an appeal process (which seems to be your point), would you support not selling arms to those on terrorist watch list?

and everyone else was dropped off.

....are you saying there are absolutely ........NO........terrorists on the list?

But if terrorist A is traveling around the world for some nefarious reason, the last thing governments want is for them to know they're being watched. We'd have an interest in who he/she contacts etc. Now, if that terrorist A has a layover in New York, do you seriously think the gov't wants them to know they're being watched?

I got held up at the airport in New York once because my name was "similar" to someone on the list. I was questioned for 30 minutes. Now, here I am, working for a government contractor, on my way to a Navy base overseas to do some programming, something I'd done dozens of times before. I'm not a threat, have no desire to be a threat and won't be a threat.

Should I be denied RKBA because of that?

Can I guarantee there are "NO" terrorists on the list? Of course not.

Was that a yes or a no to my question? .....never mind ---I finally read your answer at the end.

I'm delighted that a government contractor doing work on a Navy base is held to a higher level of scrutiny if his or her name is similiar to a real terrorist. What you see as wrong I see as prudent.

And no, you have a right to keep and bear arms and a right to have your name removed or at least coded differently.

There is no mechanism to get your name removed and you have no way to have it coded differently.

.

....

and the gov't won't confirm or deny any specific name.

There are a whole bunch of people on the right that're against it too.

49 states now allow some form of concealed carry, 29 (I'm guessing) states now have some form of stand your ground laws and how many have some form of castle doctrine law?

Try again.

and the permit is issued by a state board.

and a perfectly clean record - even misdemeanors

and they have a legitimate reason to carry.

and there is a public hearing for the applicant to allow people in the community to object to the license issue if they have reason.

and they have rigorous training.

and pay a hefty license fee.

and the license has to be renewed every year - with a law enforcement review, public hearuing and retraining.

and a public on-line data base of permit holders.

and permanent loss of permit for any conviction - even misdemeanors

and they undergo frequent random drug and alcohol testing

and there are strict boundaries and on where they can carry - not in schools, churches, bars, public buildings, public parks and playgrounds - and workplaces if the employer wants to ban them.

and no "wardrobe malfunction" loophole for concealment oopsies.

and there should be severe penalties - jail-time & fines & lifetime loss of firearms - for toters that violate those rules.

yup

(Stop to breathe)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"ego" inflation and perceived "inadequacies" are not legitimate reasons.

yup

If you can't baffle them with your brilliance, then dazzle them with your bullshit.

yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup, yup.

Sounds pretty much like a barking dog at 3am, except the dog probably has some idea of what it is barking at!

And every last person who goes out into public has a legitimate reason to carry.

Yup.

...that all important criteria: recommendation by the 1%ers club.

for a change.

and the 15th, 19th 24th and 26th.

I guess you'd also have no objection to requiring id's for other rights... say the right to vote?

Man, you're sounding more and more like the GOP every day.

Inadvertent, I'm sure.

It's a fact, look it up and become edjucated before you make bigoted blanket statements.

He is not covered under stand your ground, or CCW either.

Nor do we want to go from shall issue to may issue. Just what we need, a racist sheriff having the right to "decide" who is and is not allowed to carry a gun in his county. Can't imagine what would go wrong with that.

but the fact that anyone is allowed to endanger the public either at random (shall) or with a donation (may) is why this country is just screwed.

I know what you mean about racist sheriffs. I used to live in NC, and my abusive male roommate was denied a pistol permit from the county sheriff. NC has laws that were written to be racist since you have to present yourself before the sheriff to make sure you're the correct color, but in practice the law has actually been shown to be anti-racist and a very good thing. It denies owning one of those horrible things to a lot of people. The law was written by racists, but has since been turned against them. I love it when racism backfires.

"but the fact that anyone is allowed to endanger the public either at random (shall) or with a donation (may) is why this country is just screwed. "

Please provide STATISTICAL evidence that can prove this point. Anecdotal evidence just doesn't work, because we could go back and forth all day with that, each showing stories that highlight our position. The only rational thing you can do is show that permit holders endanger the public so significantly that it out weights the legitimate defensive firearm uses on the part of permit holders.

But I think you'll find in your research that permit holders are no more endangering the public than those who hold a drivers license (in fact, you may even find that permit holders are safer).

What an... untidy... way to run a country, eh?

I expect you'll all post furiously for about an hour or two, then cut and paste some new crap about the "backlash" where a sheriff banned CCW in the county owned garage or something. Then go back to your usual pattern of whining online then putting your thumb somewhere and doing nothing about it. As usual.

How's that repeal petition for CCW in Maine going? How many signatures? How about repealing SYG in FLa? Got that petition started yet? Had many meetings representing your gun control group with legislators?

So, in other words everything is normal.

Thank heaven for lazy supposed gun control supporters.

People are fed up - and Democrats will have little to fear from the the GOP douchebaggers who pass extremists gun nut laws.

Repeal castle laws - easy

Repeal guns in bars - easy

Repeal guns on college campuses - easy

Say FUCK NO to National Reciprocity.

Say FUCK NO to Open Carry.

a start

yup

Based on your track record of getting gun control supporters in office in your own home states and having them act the way you and a handful think they should, I don't think anyone has much to worry about from your imaginary backlash. You and your gun control cause have proven to be dismal and consistent failures.

In fact, we seem to be electing more pro second amendment Dems than ever before, as they recognize what the people that vote for them really want, just like our President has. He's already signed more pro 2nd amendment laws than Bush did in 8 years.

Shit, you can't even get your own home states to do anything, but somehow you think you're leading a wave of backlash? Pathetic.

So how are things today on Fantasy Island, Mr Roarke still running the place? Did you get Tattoo's old job watching for the plane ... and the backlash?

Never going to happen no matter how much you "yup".





Yup.

How do you suppose you are going to accomplish that, join the Bradies, start petitions, join MAIG ORRRRR

Just whine about it on the internet?

"It's a prescription for legalized vigilante murder."

The only vigilantes out there are the ones calling for zimmermans head, your heroes, the new black panther party.

Right, repeal these laws on the basis of a handful of dubiously-applicable incidents, ignoring the overhwelming statistical evidence that they have not only not resulted in the "river of blood" scenario that the hand-wringers so often bleat about, but that shootings in fact continue to decline in most jurisdictions.

Derp.

...concealed-carry abuses and vigilante murders are.

It may very well turn out that Zimmerman will be cleared. Not that I really care one way or the other. He owns that bullet and if the system is allowed to work I have no doubt something resembling justice will be done.

This case has been seized by a rather vocal and hysterical group of interests that somehow believe this it THE SHOOTING that will allow them to turn things around in their favor. It's not about the dead kid at all anymore. That's why we are bombarded with old school pictures of Martin when he was a child and not the young man he had grown to be. It's all about image instead of truth. Something went terribly wrong that evening and I fear the facts will be lost in all the fabrications and outright lies. This is exactly why law-making should be a slow and deliberate process.

...get grassroots support with a few wealthy and famous figureheads, and start working up the state level.



Think that will work?

None of the anti's ever answer the question "What anti-gun groups do you belong to, how much do you donate and how often do you interact with legislators regarding your anti-gun position?"

Curiously.

We all can see how that is working out.

...what Virginia is to New York city

Arm dealing states......more interested in commerce than public safety.

to deal with it.

Spoken Like the Far Right Said to Vietnam Protestors....the old 'love it or leave it'

WHO exactly do you think is the largest importers of illegal guns into Mexico?

Mexicans.
Next question.

.

The point wasn't "Love it or leave it" at all, but rather "here are places that are anti-gun strongholds. Take a look at how well its working there."

But hey, nice try.

Where exactly do you think they are importing illegal arms from?

or haven't you heard about Fast and Furious?

-- Snort --

You're almost as funny as jpak.

...would have helped......

The stamp could be filed off with a simple nail file. It would gradually go away through use.

Unless you want to legislate that after every 300 rounds the firing pin needs to be replaced with the same microstamp.

Ask yourself this:
Like I ask the right wingers about privatizing public schools, do you see those countries who are "kicking our ass" in that are doing it?
No

Last edited Mon Apr 2, 2012, 07:13 PM - Edit history (1)

yup

Not gonna hold my breath waiting,

Nope

Nope

Nope

Roaming the streets, trailing vigilantes, taking notes, snapping photos, and calling the cops on them?


Hmmmm... if only there was a name for the members of that kind of anti-vigilante group...

you must be dreaming again..

...that's the usual for the OP's posts in this group. Lots of words, little content.

Thankfully Sheila Jackson Lee has raised the banner and is charging the hill.

These neighborhood watch groups need to register. With who... The town, township, county, state or fed? She has not said, just that these "groups" need to register. OMG!!! Panic!!!